Euthanasia

Euthanasia refers to the practice of ending a human life in a gentle and easy way in case of incurable and painful disease.
Euthanasia is implemented with the assistance of medical people only after the person suffering has given his consent for the ending of his life. In case of patients who have been incapacitated to the extent of not even able to indicate whether he should be subjected to euthanasia, the ending of life is done only when the closest relatives indicate that euthanasia be effected. The process is generally gone through only in the presence of witnesses. For example, a person has met with a serious accident which has incapacitated him and he cannot be cured with the present level knowledge of medical science.
Present position in respect of countries
As of 2008, some forms of euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand, the U.S. States of Oregon and Washington, the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain). Medical Associations of many countries have opposed legalizing euthanasia.
A Member of Parliament in India had tabled a Bill a few years back for introducing Euthanasia in India. However, so far the Bill has not been formally proposed for consideration of the Parliament.
//
Classification of euthanasia
1 ) Euthanasia by consent
Euthanasia may be conducted with consent (voluntary euthanasia) or without consent (involuntary euthanasia). Involuntary euthanasia is conducted where an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so. The decision can be made based on what the incapacitated individual would have wanted, or it could be made on substituted judgment of what the decision maker would want were he or she in the incapacitated person's place, or finally, the decision could be made by assessing objectively whether euthanasia is the most beneficial course of treatment. In any case, euthanasia by proxy consent is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient and may or may not have explicit consent from the patient to make that decision.
Euthanasia by means
Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-actively, and actively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, pain medications, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death. Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-active euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means.
Reasons given for voluntary euthanasia:
Choice: Proponents of voluntary euthanasia emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease, even with pain relievers, can be incomprehensible to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence.
Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists. It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society, especially if the resources used could be spent on a curable ailment.
Reasons given against voluntary euthanasia:
Professional role: Critics argue that voluntary euthanasia could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that European physicians of previous centuries traditionally swore some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which in its ancient form excluded euthanasia: "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.." However, since the 1970s, this oath has largely fallen out of use.
Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable. This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
Theological: Voluntary euthanasia has often been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans should not be the ones to make the choice to end life. Orthodox Judaism takes basically the same approach, however, it is more open minded, and does, given certain circumstances, allow for euthanasia to be exercised under passive or non-aggressive means. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider voluntary euthanasia (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings. Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to attempt to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia, critics are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public money, as in various European countries, critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent.
Additional points for consideration
· I am 95 years old. Most of my faculties have impaired. I am slowly losing other faculties. Living is an eternal pain for me. Then should not the State assist in my wish to die. But then what about a person who is only fifty but yet don’t want to live any more. A person may be facing extreme poverty and there is nobody to look after him. A person has gone through extreme tragedies in his life and don’t want to live any more. These are only illustrative examples. The situations could be multiplied whereby it would become applicable to a twenty year old person.
· A child is born with some major defect. The child will remain in a vegetable state throughout the life, taking into account the present level of medical science. If the State was to apply euthanasia on such a child, nobody would probably protest. But as said in the earlier point, this could be extended to a number of cases. Say, a child could live and grow up to a man, but the living would be extremely painful or arduous. Parents of one child with such extreme complication may opt for euthanasia but parents of another child with the same condition may decide to take care of the child. In such a case how will the State be adjudged for the action in the case of the first child.
· If euthanasia is allowed under certain extreme ccircumstances, then why not allow suicide. Attempt to suicide is a crime. Why should it be so. Will not somebody argue that he attempted suicide because he has no interest in living. He may be an able bodied person. But the person could argue that the point is of wishing to live or not. If somebody has an incurable disease or cannot function properly and hence makes it clear that he has no interest in living. If the State decides that euthanasia can be done on such a person, then why not on the second person. But would not then the central point gets reduced to interest in living. Then again what about undesirable developments, such as, relatives making the life of an old person miserable to acquisce him to agree for euthanasia.
Here again the dilemma is the role of State to determine or interfere in such maters, and since the State should relect the views of the society, can society allow euthanasia. If yes, then where is the line to be drawn.

In India ( and probably that is the case with most of the other countries ) there is hardly any awareness on the subject under analysis. Medical profession is aware of the fact that its members cannot assist in euthanasia. It is a criminal offense. Hence in the case of patients suffering from various serious ailments or severe pain or inability to look after oneself or there is no cure in the (English) medical system, doctors advise relatives of the patients to take them back to their homes and quietly suggest how euthanasia could be effected. Further, relatives of such persons, unaware of the legal nuances of euthanasia, do not meticulously ensure that their action of effecting euthanasia is kept in wraps. The danger is that if and when police suspect of such action, they can fleece those who indulged in euthanasia.
It is precisely in a poor country like India which should have a law for euthanasia. Poor in many cases are not able to look after invalid and old relatives, not to speak of providing them with treatment and medication. So what happens is those persons go through a painful process of slow death.
Tenets of various religions, though may not have explicitly stated, are also against such a deed ( euthanasia ). Hence it becomes extremely repugnant for most people to think of administering authanasia on their relatives. There would also be objections from the society. But the suffering of the one afflicted is overlooked with a sigh of that it is their ‘ karma.’
But somewhere the debate on the subject should start. Awareness of the subject has to be slowly built up with pros and cons thoroughly discussed. Civil societies and medical profession should take a lead in the matter.

****